| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Does the world really want an end to terrorism? |
| 2006-08-01 |
| Jim Geraghty, National Review Captain Ed writes in the Washington Examiner today, lamenting that the United Nations and the world community denounce every child killed by Israel, because they hold it to a high standard; no one bothers to denounce Hezbollah for endangering children, because it's what we have come to expect from terrorists. I think he, perhaps unwittingly, hit on the key point in one of his closing paragraphs: If the world wants to live without terrorism, it needs to stop enabling terrorists with disproportionate criticism of civilized nations that wage war within established limits. This soft nihilism of low expectations encourages non-state actors to engage sovereign nations, knowing that the world will not allow the nations to fight terrorism effectively. Does "the world" really want to live without terrorism? To the extent that one opinion can be ascribed to the six billion or so people on the planet, and to judge from the actions of the nations of the world, I think the answer is no. The overwhelming attitude among many peoples and many nations — including the United States — is that terrorism somewhere far away isn't our problem. Hezbollah launching rockets into Israel? As Ed notes, denouncing Hezbollah is so ineffectual and pointless that some commentators don't even bother to do it anymore. Israel killing innocents in its hunt for Hezbollah? Notice that for all the denunciation you hear on the "Arab Street", no regime is actually willing to send troops to separate the two sides. They'll complain about what's going on, and denounce the IDF as terrorists, but they won't go as far as to actually risk anything. Not Egypt, nor Jordan, nor Saudi Arabia. Not the Gulf states. (Turkey is iffy; they're hinting they may send troops, don't want to lead the operation.) Even when Syria and/or Iran send men or arms to help out Hezbollah, they do so secretly. For all their hatred of Israel, they don't deem the Jewish state's "terrorism" as bad enough to risk outright war. They'll stick to the less difficult proxy war. Bombs demolishing trains in Bombay? It was a one-day story. A hundred civilians dying a day in Iraq from sectarian violence and lunatics blowing up car bombs in crowded markets? Eh, we're used to it. What did Mel Gibson do today? Go down the list - Beslan, Madrid, the British consulate in Istanbul, the Jordanian hotel bombings, Bali, 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole, the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania... terrorists slaughter people, and only among the impacted community do you hear the response, "do whatever you have to do in order to eliminate the threat." Everywhere else, it's "this is terrible, but let's remember proportionality... Let's remember restraint. Let's not let this turn into an all out war." Hell, one could argue that the United States is making the same argument to Turkey, regarding PKK terrorists who target innocents in Turkey and then retreat to Iraq. At some point, some group - probably ethnic - that hides, sponsors, offers material support for, cheers on, or simply refuses to intervene against a terrorist group within its borders is going to pay the price when that terrorist group commits a devastating attack. It might be the Chechnyans. It might be the Kurds. It might be the Lebanese. I'm sure you can think of other potential cases. At some point, a powerful nation is going to wipe out a smaller nation for not taking action to stop the terrorists in its midst — in a manner that will make the U.S. toppling of the Taliban look like a pillow fight. The result will be bloody and awful; but we will not be able to say we didn't see it coming. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #2 Totally agree - I thought we might see it with the Russians after Beslan, but for reasons that are beyond my mere divining, they didn't go postal. Sooner or later, it's going to happen, and the appeasers and moral relativists will have a huge amount of blood on their hands. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-08-01 15:57 |
| #1 At some point, a powerful nation is going to wipe out a smaller nation for not taking action to stop the terrorists in its midst — in a manner that will make the U.S. toppling of the Taliban look like a pillow fight. right. We haven't really started the mano y mano fighting yet. But once we do it will be bloody. These cowardly liberals who prevent reasonable actions from weeding out the bad guys early - as always- will cause millions of innocent to be killed. Stitch in time, as my dearly departed mother used to say. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-08-01 14:41 |